Have the truthers ever tried simple math as evidence and not Youtube videos? Take into consideration momentum:

The planes hit the towers with approx 2.418E7 (24,180,000) kilogram-force meters per second. To put this into perspective, if an average size car
traveling at 70mph were to hit a wall (which would flatten it into a pancake) it only has 56,000 kilogram-force meters per second.

These planes hit the buildings with 542 times more force than if a car were to hit a wall traveling at 70mph!

PS I used the empty weight for a 757 in my calculation. Add in gas and you have an even more staggering figure.

edit on 11-12-2011 by de Thor
because: (no reason given)

Oh and if you want to pull out the only the wing has the momentum not the whole plane argument, take into consideration the fuel is stored in the
wing.

Originally posted by de Thor
Have the truthers ever tried simple math as evidence and not Youtube videos? Take into consideration momentum:

The planes hit the towers with approx 2.418E7 (24,180,000) kilogram-force meters per second. To put this into perspective, if an average size car
traveling at 70mph were to hit a wall (which would flatten it into a pancake) it only has 56,000 kilogram-force meters per second.

These planes hit the buildings with 542 times more force than if a car were to hit a wall traveling at 70mph!

PS I used the empty weight for a 757 in my calculation. Add in gas and you have an even more staggering figure.

edit on 11-12-2011 by de Thor
because: (no reason given)

Oh and if you want to pull out the only the wing has the momentum not the whole plane argument, take into consideration the fuel is stored in the
wing.

Problem is, like all OS supporters, you do not take into consideration equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation laws.

When two objects collide the force on both objects is the same. So regardless of the speed of the aircraft, if the aircraft puts x amount of force on
the steel, the steel puts the exact same amount of force on the aircraft. An increase in velocity, of either object, increases the forces on
both objects.

Forces always come in pairs, equal in forces, and opposite in direction...

This demonstration doesn't account for momentum conversation, but shows the deceleration of the objects, take momentum conservation into account the
amount of deceleration of the objects accounts for the damage. The smaller object will decelerate more than the larger object, and thus will receive
the most damage of the two objects.

It comes down to mass, not velocity, when you want to compare the damage caused to each object in a collision.
An increase of velocity in the aircraft, does not mean the steel will receive more damage than the aircraft.

What you forget is that the steel only has a certain amount of force that it can return back to the impacting plane. Once that allowance is breached,
the steel will break, and the plane will continue passing through, though severely damaged. You seem to think the steel will absorb every single bit
of energy from the airplane and return it in kind. That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

Originally posted by ANOK
Problem is, like all OS supporters, you do not take into consideration equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation laws.

When two objects collide the force on both objects is the same. So regardless of the speed of the aircraft, if the aircraft puts x amount of force on
the steel, the steel puts the exact same amount of force on the aircraft. An increase in velocity, of either object, increases the forces on
both objects.

Forces always come in pairs, equal in forces, and opposite in direction...

This demonstration doesn't account for momentum conversation, but shows the deceleration of the objects, take momentum conservation into account the
amount of deceleration of the objects accounts for the damage. The smaller object will decelerate more than the larger object, and thus will receive
the most damage of the two objects.

It comes down to mass, not velocity, when you want to compare the damage caused to each object in a collision.
An increase of velocity in the aircraft, does not mean the steel will receive more damage than the aircraft.

edit on 12/11/2011 by ANOK because: typo

Problem is, like all truthers, you do not take into consideration that you know absolutely nothing about physics.

Your attempt at an explanation only reinforces that you're out of your element.

Your physics makes no sense to me. How come a small lead bullet can punch a hole in a big steel sheet ?

Can it?

Regardless of what makes sense, and your baseless claim...

...The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on
the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the
direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.

A collision is an interaction between two objects that have made contact (usually) with each other. As in any interaction, a collision results in
a force being applied to the two colliding objects. Newton's laws of motion govern such collisions. In the second unit of The Physics Classroom,
Newton's third law of motion was introduced and discussed. It was said that...

... in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the force on the first object equals the
size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object.
Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs....

Express your understanding of Newton's third law by answering the following questions. Click the button to check your answers.

1. While driving down the road, a firefly strikes the windshield of a bus and makes a quite obvious mess in front of the face of the driver. This is a
clear case of Newton's third law of motion. The firefly hit the bus and the bus hits the firefly. Which of the two forces is greater: the force on
the firefly or the force on the bus?

Answer...

Trick Question! Each force is the same size. For every action, there is an equal ... (equal!). The fact that the firefly splatters only means that
with its smaller mass, it is less able to withstand the larger acceleration resulting from the interaction. Besides, fireflies have guts and bug guts
have a tendency to be splatterable. Windshields don't have guts. There you have it.

More energy. More damage. You have proved nothing and only shown your contempt. You refuse to prove your points and all you have is opinion on the
direction of damage. This should be a lesson to everyone on this site that you are merely a rabble-rouser, here to incite insanity and make demands of
others, while not doing any work yourself. I already showed you how much more energy there is when you factor in speed. The plane will not stay
intact. I think I've stressed that over a dozen times now, but it will cause much more damage.

More energy. More damage. You have proved nothing and only shown your contempt. You refuse to prove your points and all you have is opinion on the
direction of damage. This should be a lesson to everyone on this site that you are merely a rabble-rouser, here to incite insanity and make demands of
others, while not doing any work yourself. I already showed you how much more energy there is when you factor in speed. The plane will not stay
intact. I think I've stressed that over a dozen times now, but it will cause much more damage.

Wow, you get cranky when I prove you wrong. See ya.

You really enjoy making up things to make yourself feel like a winner. Where have you proven the equation of force wrong?

What you forget is that the steel only has a certain amount of force that it can return back to the impacting plane. Once that allowance is breached,
the steel will break, and the plane will continue passing through, though severely damaged. You seem to think the steel will absorb every single bit
of energy from the airplane and return it in kind. That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

If the forces on both colliding objects is equal, then the velocity of the plane is not the deciding factor on which objects receives the most damage.
The momentum of both objects is conserved, both objects want to maintain their momentum, equally. The only other deciding factor then, other than
details such as crumpling etc., is the mass. BTW, that is the mass of the molecules making contact, not the whole mass of the objects.

Thin aluminum would have a tough time slicing through steel box columns, at any speed. That would mean going through two sheets of steel straight on,
and two side on. That is all I'm saying. The aluminum would crumple before it could break the steel, or even bolts. Even if the plane did manage to
go through the mesh, by breaking the bolts etc., there would have been some obvious deformation of the plane as it happened, and I have no doubt at
that it could not then do further substantial damage to the core. That then still leaves problems for the OS.

Your claim that the speed is the answer to the problem is wrong, a common layman misunderstanding.

Originally posted by ANOK
If the forces on both colliding objects is equal, then the velocity of the plane is not the deciding factor on which objects receives the most damage.
The momentum of both objects is conserved, both objects want to maintain their momentum, equally. The only other deciding factor then, other than
details such as crumpling etc., is the mass. BTW, that is the mass of the molecules making contact, not the whole mass of the objects.

Thin aluminum would have a tough time slicing through steel box columns, at any speed. That would mean going through two sheets of steel straight on,
and two side on. That is all I'm saying. The aluminum would crumple before it could break the steel, or even bolts. Even if the plane did manage
to go through the mesh, by breaking the bolts etc., there would have been some obvious deformation of the plane as it happened, and I have no doubt at
that it could not then do further substantial damage to the core. That then still leaves problems for the OS.

Your claim that the speed is the answer to the problem is wrong, a common layman misunderstanding.

edit on 12/11/2011 by ANOK because: typo

No, I'm pretty sure that I've got it right. The plane was getting heavily damaged and shredded as it passed through the wall. Parts of the steel
weren't even broken by the wings, only bent and damaged. Isn't that prove that the exchange of high energy was made? What is so impossible about it?

Oh, and the guns didn't melt, therefore the police lied, therefore the police should be considered suspect.

So will you ever prove your position, or are you going to keep avoiding it and going after other points that are unrelated to the topic at hand? You
have not proven that the steel had enough resistance against the energy of the plane.

Originally posted by Varemia
No, I'm pretty sure that I've got it right.

I'm sure you think you do.

The plane was getting heavily damaged and shredded as it passed through the wall. Parts of the steel weren't even broken by the wings, only
bent and damaged. Isn't that prove that the exchange of high energy was made? What is so impossible about it?

No, because there is no prove [sic] that the plane was being shredded. There is no crumpling, or slowing.

And again, you must have missed this part, or can you not focus on more than one point at a time? How could the plane go on and cause damage to the
core, after being ripped to shreds and losing momentum?

Originally posted by ANOK
No, because there is no prove [sic] that the plane was being shredded. There is no crumpling, or slowing.

And again, you must have missed this part, or can you not focus on more than one point at a time? How could the plane go on and cause damage to the
core, after being ripped to shreds and losing momentum?

I'm pretty sure you've got it wrong.

edit on 12/11/2011 by ANOK because: typo

In other words, you can't see inside the building while the plane impacts, so the plane must not have impacted? What a joke!

Edit: You should remember that the tower had WINDOWS. The plane wasn't hitting a solid wall. The wings "seem" like they go right through because the
material shreds through and finds a place to go through the windows. In the slow motion, you can see the second plane's engines make a much bigger
impact, as they must completely break the steel to make it through.

Originally posted by ANOK
No, because there is no prove [sic] that the plane was being shredded. There is no crumpling, or slowing.

And again, you must have missed this part, or can you not focus on more than one point at a time? How could the plane go on and cause damage to the
core, after being ripped to shreds and losing momentum?

I'm pretty sure you've got it wrong.

edit on 12/11/2011 by ANOK because: typo

In other words, you can't see inside the building while the plane impacts, so the plane must not have impacted? What a joke!

The NIST couldn't see inside the building, nor could Bezant, MIT or the rest of them. That didn't stop their reports of pure speculation.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.